Staredit Network

No need to get mad.

If you can explain how my analogy is invalid, rather than different (which is what analogies are by definition), then we can continue this discussion. As of now, I'm confident that a unbiased observer will see who is being more intelligent here.

There is such an obvious double standard going on. Do you not realise that I DID point out how yours is invalid. But you never really pointed out how mine was? All you said was my cookies jars had no "meaningful tie with al qaeda", and you didn't explain why. You just basically said I was wrong, you were right. Dead serious, that's basically what you've been saying. Hell, even when I FIRST started to debate against you, you were calling me dense. Infact, here's the quote of you saying it:



That there kinda got me a little mad, but I was nice and didnt keep it personal. Then later on, you seriously said I should not be on the forums at all. Like you're so much better than me.



And you told ME not to get mad. Please, don't be using double standards on me.

My reason was perfectly valid; there is no valid connection between the two.

When you don't stop terrorist organizations, they grow. Taking a cookie from a jar does not "grow" (it doesn't even make sense).

You have yet to provide any meaningful respone to my anaolgy, and you have yet to explain eight years of Clinton ignoring Al Qaeda and letting them grow is perfectly fine, but Bush gets 100% of the blame for ignoring him for an always-hectic first seven months in office.

Why would he do anything about them? They had not done anything to us. We had our eye on them, but we had no reason to attack them. If we knew that 9/11 was going to happen, we would of most likely taken action. But we didn't. Clinton could not have done anything. And i still say Bush should have nuked them, and left it at that.

NOW you gave me your reason. About time, thank you.

I've already provided a meaningful response to your analogy. You just so happen to not read what I posted.



I suppose you kinda forgot that little post of mine a little while back. To clarify things, so there's no, "Oh, I thought you meant..." bullblam going on. I'll make it even more detailed, and even add a sentence or 2 to make another point:

Your analogy with the fireman is not perfect because there was not a blazing fire when the 1st fireman was there. Infact, it was just a something smoking in the oven. The 2nd fireman coudl've EASILY put it out. But he must've been looking the other way, although the his friends told him to look at the fire behind him. But he thought it was just gonna burn out or something.

Am I saying clinton is better? No. Am I saying bush is worse because of this? No. I'm saying, that it was not clinton's "fault". It wasn't even JUST bush's "fault". Only reason why it can be considered bush's fault, is because he was the one in charge. Even you would admit that. 7 months is a long ass time. If it was 7 days, I would be on your side.

Ever heard of something called Congress?

Clinton did nothing because he could DO NOTHING.

Bush did something because he IGNORED Congress which is AGAINST THE RULES!

So now try to blame Clinton when all he did was follow the rules of Congress when it comes to things like this.

Good and valid points all of them. I like it!

Hello, Durk.

After the 9/11 incendent, I have not been myself.

I lost my brother, and my cousin. I was very devistated to find out what happend when they announced it on television.

I go the memorial evrey year in New York.

You don't need congressional approval for the FBI to target an organization; nothing would ever get done.

Also, you are gravely underestimating Al Qaeda under Clinton; are you saying it grew from easy-for-Bush-to-stop to impossible-for-several-nationa-governments to stop in 7 months? Not at all. It took years and years to reach that point, and those years were when Clinton was doing nothing.

And don't say we weren't attacked during then, to the guy who said that.

Oh. So now you're trying to say that if he broke the rules like Bush did, we would be better off, and 911 would have never have happened?

Where do you come up with these illusions?

If Clinton even tried to do anything it wouldn't have stopped anything. You even said that they are to big.

And for your info, there are only two nations in the "War On Terrorism" right now because they know the USA RUSHED into it.

Well Bush did rush into Iraq,probably because his dad had a problem with Saddam.
But have some respect its the president and you should respect his decisions unless you feel it is a country desicion.

and if Hilary Clinton is EVER running for president VOTE for some one else

we might have her as president cause the females dont care who it is just to show that there can be a women president.

As much as I agree with you on hilary, I don't agree as much about the president part. If the presidents crosses the line, you put him in his place. That simple. It's supposed to be a democracy.

As for hilary, then again:
A- I don't know ALL of her stances.

and

B- I currently don't know who she is running up against.

It is supposed to be a country desicion anyways -_-



It isn't a Democracy because we elect officials to go into office for us. Thus making it a Democratic-Republic

You are saying that Clinton could not have done anything in 8 years becuase nothing could have been accomplished. What makes you think Bush could have done anything in 7 months (after it had already grown out of control under Clinton)?



Are you kidding? First of all, you are thinking about the Iraqi war (which actually has a coalition of dozens of countries, see Bush's State of the Union speech).

Now that that's out of the way, nearly every country in the world (including Russia and China) are helping us with the war against terrorism. Get your facts straight and stop blaming Bush for everything.

First off, why do you blame only Clinton? Why couldn't Reagan, or SR. Bush have done anything???? Why not Jimmy Carter? Gerald Ford? Or even Richard Nixon?? I remember hearing about Terrorist bombings from those days, so why only blame Clinton??? If you want to blame someone, start with Nixon.

Second. Name more then two countries that are in there right now. Seriously. Name me more then TWO countries and I shall believe his "State of the Union"

First off, Russia doesn't like us much, so if they really are "Helping" it's for THEIR benifit only, not the worlds. Same with China

Second. You sit there and tell everyone here that nearly every country in the world is helping, but you only name two?

Third. The only country that is in Iraq with us right now are the British. And only the British. Where is our "Coalition"?

For your info, it was disbanned at the start of the war because there really never was a Coalition if you think about it. Once Saddam was kicked out everyone left. We should have done the same thing.

Pre-Clinton: Yes, I'm sure some blame can be placed on them, but if I recall correctly Al Qaeda never attacked us until Clinton's term, and liberals would be screaming "preemptive strike!" had we tried to do anything.

War on Terror: I don't have to name any more than Russia and China (and it doesn't matter their reasons, by the way); just look in the news and you'll hear about them. France, Japan, Germany, etc. are all helping us; North Korea may be the only country that isn't fighting Al Qaeda. If you choose not to believe this despite countless news headlines, you're only hurting yourself.

Iraqi War: Many, many countries are helping us without actually sending troops, but you asked for one country: Japan did send troops to help keep the peace.

Do you know how many organisations are under Al Qaeda? You cannot say that they barely attacked us under Clinton, because they have been behind most terrorist attacks.

France claims they are doing things against them, but do you see any facts?

WE OWN Japan basically.

Germany are chickens. They have been picked on throughout history. So they are just following along everyone else. Have any proof they are helping?

Japan only sent troops because WE ARE their troops. They have not had their own military force since World War II. We are the military precense in Japan.

But apparently you are to arrogent to listen to what anyone says. And you are ignorant about the topic, too.

Or it seems like you are.

My Webpage

I never said they barely attacked us under Clinton. In fact, your point helps mine. Thanks.



You claim that the US and France are lying about France helping fighting the war on terrorism? You're a joke!



Having military bases in their country does not mean we own them; do we own much of Europe as well?



Helping what, the Iraqi war or the war on terrorism? If it's the former, you can search the old news yourself. If it's the latter, you are seriously lacking in mental capacity if you think they are alone in the world in not fighting terrorism.

I find it amusing that you ask me to prove a simple fact such as that, yet you make wild assertions with no proof of your own!



Please do not speak of things of which you do not know:

http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/i...p?storyid=98486

Clinton does deserve some of the blame, but Bush does too. Bush ignored the threat, Clinton did not deal with it swiftly enough. It was a difference between one or both eyes closed. The issue is not the fact that Bush did not prevent 9/11, it is that he never considered it a threat, he ignored all the evidence, he obstructed FBI probes into the Saudi royal family and Saudi Arabia, and then exploited the disaster for his own political gain.

My brother is in the air force over in Japan, I forget how to spell the islands name but it is something like Okonowa... I just hope he doesn't get hurt or anything.

I have relatives in Okinawa

I agree with you on that. Isn't it kinda fishy that soon as he gets in we get bombed?

Yep. Clinton really should have delt with Al Qaeda.

Why "Should" he have? Why are you trying to make him seem like a bad guy for being an Isolationalist? Most presidents before Theodore Rosevelt were like that. Then he came and stole the Panama Canal

Edit: So all I really ask is why? Why should he "really" have? He did not think of them as a threat apparantly, or he would have done something about it. Why are you trying to make him seem like such a terrible president for not dealing with a "threat" that no one thought was a threat at the time? Terrorist attacks were normal, so no one really tried to do anything about it because they knew it would be to costly.